Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening for Persistent Hepatitis E Virus Infection in Solid Organ Transplant Patients in the United Kingdom: A Model-Based Economic Evaluation.
Ankcorn, Michael J; Tedder, Richard S; Cairns, John; Sandmann, Frank G.
Affiliation
  • Ankcorn MJ; Blood Borne Virus Unit, Virus Reference Department, National Infection Service, Public Health England, Colindale, London, England, UK; Transfusion Microbiology, National Health Service Blood and Transplant, London, England, UK. Electronic address: michaelankcorn@nhs.net.
  • Tedder RS; Blood Borne Virus Unit, Virus Reference Department, National Infection Service, Public Health England, Colindale, London, England, UK; Transfusion Microbiology, National Health Service Blood and Transplant, London, England, UK; Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, England, UK.
  • Cairns J; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK.
  • Sandmann FG; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK; Statistics, Modelling and Economics Department, National Infection Service, Public Health England, Colindale, London, England, UK.
Value Health ; 23(3): 309-318, 2020 03.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32197726
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Despite potentially severe and fatal outcomes, recent studies of solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients in Europe suggest that hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is underdiagnosed, with a prevalence of active infection of up to 4.4%.

OBJECTIVES:

To determine the cost-effectiveness of introducing routine screening for HEV infection in SOT recipients in the UK.

METHODS:

A Markov cohort model was developed to evaluate the cost-utility of 4 HEV screening options over the lifetime of 1000 SOT recipients. The current baseline of nonsystematic testing was compared with annual screening of all patients by polymerase chain reaction (PCR; strategy A) or HEV-antigen (HEV-Ag) detection (strategy B) and selective screening of patients who have a raised alanine aminotransferase (ALT) value by PCR (strategy C) or HEV-Ag (strategy D). The primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). We adopted the National Health Service (NHS) perspective and discounted future costs and benefits at 3.5%.

RESULTS:

At a willingness-to-pay of £20 000/QALY gained, systematic screening of SOT patients by any method (strategy A-D) had a high probability (77.9%) of being cost-effective. Among screening strategies, strategy D is optimal and expected to be cost-saving to the NHS; if only PCR testing strategies are considered, then strategy C becomes cost-effective (£660/QALY). These findings were robust against a wide range of sensitivity and scenario analyses.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our model showed that routine screening for HEV in SOT patients is very likely to be cost-effective in the UK, particularly in patients presenting with an abnormal alanine aminotransferase.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: State Medicine / Mass Screening / Organ Transplantation / Hepatitis E / Health Care Costs Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Health_economic_evaluation / Prevalence_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Aspects: Patient_preference Limits: Humans Country/Region as subject: Europa Language: En Journal: Value Health Journal subject: FARMACOLOGIA Year: 2020 Document type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: State Medicine / Mass Screening / Organ Transplantation / Hepatitis E / Health Care Costs Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Health_economic_evaluation / Prevalence_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Aspects: Patient_preference Limits: Humans Country/Region as subject: Europa Language: En Journal: Value Health Journal subject: FARMACOLOGIA Year: 2020 Document type: Article